LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS et al v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LEAGUE OF UNITED LA TIN AMERICAN
CITIZENS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT, et al.,
Defendants.
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
Defendants.
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
EDUCATION FUND, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-cv-0946 (CKK)
Civil Action No. 25-cv-0952 (CKK)
Civil Action No. 25-cv-0955 (CKK)
FINAL JUDGMENT
Case 1:25-cv-00946-CKK Document 256 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 5

This case arose out of three consolidated lawsuits challenging the enforcement of Executive
Order 14,248 (March 25, 2025). See League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Exec. Off of the
President, Case No. I :25-cv-00946-CKK (D.D.C.) (lead case); Democratic Nat 'I Comm. v. Trump,
Case No. I :25-cv-00952-CKK (D.D.C.); League of Women Voters Educ. Fund v. Trump, Case No.
1:25-cv-00955-CKK (D.D.C .).
Defendants in these consolidated cases are President Donald J. Trump; the Executive Office
of the President; the U.S. Election Assistance Commission ("EAC"); the U.S. Department of Justice;
the U.S. DOGE Service; the U.S. Department of State; the U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
the U.S. Department of Defense; the Federal Voting Assistance Program; the U.S . Department of
Veterans Affairs; the U. S. Small Business Administration; the U.S. Department of the Interior; the
Social Security Administration; and various officials sued in their official capacities, including
Benjamin W. Hovland (in his official capacity as Commissioner of the EAC); Donald L. Palmer (in
his official capacity as Commissioner of the EAC); Thomas Hicks (in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the EAC); Christy McCormick (in her official capacity as Commissioner of the
EAC); Brianna Schletz (in her official capacity as Executive Director of the EAC); Pamela Bondi (in
her official capacity as U.S . Attorney General); Amy Gleason (in her official capacity as Acting
DOGE Administrator); Marco Rubio (in his official capacity as Secretary of State); Markwayne
Mullin (in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security); 1 Peter B. Hegseth (in his official
capacity as Secretary of Defense); J. Scott Wiedmann (in his official capacity as Director of the
Federal Voting Assistance Program); Douglas A. Collins (in his official capacity as Secretary of
Veterans Affairs); Kelly Loeffler (in her official capacity as Administrator of the U.S. Small Business
1 Kristi Noem was named as a defendant in her official capacity as then-Secretary of Homeland
Security. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Markwayne Mullin, current Secretary of
Homeland Security, is automatically substituted as a Defendant.
Case 1:25-cv-00946-CKK Document 256 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 5

Administration); Doug Burgum (in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior); and Frank J.
Bisignano (in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration). 2
The Court bifurcated briefing and entered summary judgment orders on October 31, 2025, see
ECF Nos. 217, 218, and on January 30, 2026, see ECF Nos. 235, 236. The Court also ordered,
pursuant to Rule 54(6), that its October 3 l, 2025 summary judgment ruling serve as a final judgment
as to Plaintiffs' constitutional challenges to Section 2(a) of Executive Order 14,248. See ECF No. 217
at 3. Following the Court's summary judgment orders, the parties agreed that they no longer wished
to litigate any remaining issues and therefore requested entry of final judgment under either Rule
58(d) or Rule 54(6). See ECF No. 248 at 3. The Court agreed that the matter was ripe for final
judgment and ordered the parties to submit a proposed final judgment under Rule 58(d). See March
9, 2026 Minute Order.
In accordance with the Comt's prior summary judgment orders, the Court hereby ORDERS,
ADJUDGES, AND DECREES as follows:
1. 	The Court restates for completeness that it previously issued a final judgment and
permanent injunction against enforcement of Section 2(a) of Executive Order 14,248 by Defendants
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Palmer, Hicks, Hovland, McCormick, and Schletz; and that
that partial final judgment is already on appeal. See ECF Nos. 217, 227, 229. This statement is not a
duplication of the previous final judgment.
2. 	IT IS DECLARED that Section 2(d) of Executive Order 14,248 violates the
separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution. It is ORDERED that Defendants Department of
Defense, Hegseth, Department of Veterans Affairs, Collins, Department of the Interior, Burgum,
2 Leland Dudek was named as a defendant in his official capacity as then-Acting Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Frank J. Bisignano,
current Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, is automatically substituted as a
Defendant. See ECF No. 235 at 4 n.1.
2
Case 1:25-cv-00946-CKK Document 256 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 5

Small Business Administration, and Loeffler are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from taking any
action to implement or give effect to Section 2(d).
3. 	IT IS DECLARED that Section 3(d) of Executive Order 14,248 violates the
separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution. It is ORDERED that Defendants Department of
Defense, Hegseth, Federal Voting Assistance Program, and Wiedmann are PERMANENTLY
ENJOINED from taking any action to implement or give effect to Section 3(d).
4. 	IT IS DECLARED that in the course of implementing Section 2(b) of Executive
Order 14,248, Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Mullin, Department of State, Rubio,
U.S. DOGE Service, and Gleason, must strictly adhere to the mandates of the Privacy Act, including
its requirement that agencies provide at least 30 days' notice and oppo1tunity for comment for any
new or intended "routine use" of information stored in an agency's system of records. See 5 U.S.C. §
552a(e)(4)(D), (e)(l l).
5. 	IT IS DECLARED that in the course of implementing Section 3(a) of Executive
Order 14,248, Defendants Social Security Administration and Bisignano must strictly adhere to the
mandates of the Privacy Act, including its requirement that agencies provide at least 30 days' notice
and opportunity for comment for any new or intended "routine use" of information stored in an
agency's system ofrecords. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4)(D), (e)(l l).
6. 	IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is otherwise entered in favor of
Defendants on al I other claims addressed in the Court's October 31, 2025 Summary Judgment Order,
ECF Nos. 217, 218, and its January 30, 2026 Summary Judgment Order, ECF Nos. 235, 236.
Specifically:
a. 	Judgment is entered for Defendants with respect to Plaintiffs' challenges to
Sections 4(a), 7(a), and 7(b) of Executive Order 14,248, which are dismissed without
prejudice. ECF No. 235 at 3-4.
3
Case 1:25-cv-00946-CKK Document 256 Filed 03/31/26 Page 4 of 5

b. 	Judgment is entered for Defendants with respect to Plaintiffs' Administrative
Procedure Act ("APA") challenges to Sections 2(a), 2(d), and 3(d) of Executive Order 14,248,
which are dismissed without prejudice. ECF No. 217 at 3; ECF No. 235 at 3; March 9, 2026
Minute Order (dismissing the APA claims in Count 5 of the Complaint in Case No. I :25-cv-
00946-CKK).
c. 	Judgment is entered for Defendants with respect to the Democratic Party
Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, based on alleged violations of the Privacy Act, against
the implementation of Sections 2(b) and 3(a) of Executive Order 14,248 through changes to
the Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements
Program and the Social Security Administration's "Numident" database, because the request
for injunctive relief on this basis is moot. ECF No. 235 at 4.
7. 	The Democratic Party Plaintiffs' Complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-00952-CKK is
AMENDED to strike the challenges to Sections 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d) of Executive Order 14,248; the
constitutional undue burden challenge to Section 2(d); and the remaining APA challenges to Sections
2(b) and 3(a) under the Privacy Act. ECF No. 235 at 5; cf ECF No. 248 at 2-3, 5. The Court
recognizes that the parties have expressed a desire to treat these amendments with the same effect as
a dismissal without prejudice. See ECF No. 193.
8. 	IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the
terms of this Final Judgment and to award such other relief as may be appropriate.
Dated: March 31, 2026
coLL ~Lfit;oitf<United States District Judge
4
Case 1:25-cv-00946-CKK Document 256 Filed 03/31/26 Page 5 of 5